Hello, sorry for bumping this question but I had a doubt.

The patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery but who did not benefit from it were medically indistinguishable, prior to their surgery, from the patients who did benefit. --> Does this not strengthen the argument? If the patients were indistinguishable prior to their surgery, does that not put them on the same ground? My reasoning was this - The patients were in the same state or on equal footing before the surgery. Therefore there is no reason to question the argument.

Usually in a strengthening question, an unstated assumption acts as the possible strengthener - it shows that the groups in consideration had the same characteristics initially.

Of course, when I read the explanation I agreed to that. But my question is - is not the statement ambiguous? Does not everything depend on the way we interpret the argument?

I hope I could put my point across clearly. Can you please advise what I should do in such situations? Where have I gone wrong?

Hi,
I need more information to be able to help you. How is the statement ambiguous?

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor